TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Compassionate Appointments Must Follow Legal Rules: Supreme Court Emphasizes Statutory Compliance</h1> <h3>LIC Versus. ASHA RAMCHANDRA AMBEKAR</h3> The Supreme Court held that regulations for compassionate appointments under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 must be followed strictly, and ... - Issues involved: Interpretation of regulations for compassionate appointments u/s Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 and validity of direction for appointment on compassionate grounds.Summary:The civil appeal involved the interpretation of regulations for compassionate appointments u/s Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. The appellant Corporation had framed regulations empowering the Chairman to issue instructions for effective control over staff. The Chairman issued instructions for compassionate appointments upon demise of a staff member, which were considered statutory. A circular was also issued prohibiting appointments on compassionate grounds if any family member was employed.The case arose when the widow of a deceased employee sought compassionate employment, but her request was rejected due to exceeding the age limit. Subsequently, another individual made multiple requests for compassionate appointment, leading to a writ petition directing the Corporation to appoint him. The appellant argued that regulations should not be bypassed, and appointments cannot be made when a family member is employed.The High Court directed the appointment based on need, considering the age of the second respondent. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that regulations must be followed, and sympathetic considerations should not override legal provisions. The Court highlighted that no mandamus can be issued for actions forbidden by law, and statutory provisions cannot be disregarded even in pitiable situations.Ultimately, the Court held that the direction for compassionate appointment was against statutory provisions and did not consider other potential cases. The Court allowed the civil appeal, emphasizing that the jurisdiction under mandamus should only direct consideration of the claim, not the appointment itself. The judgment dated October 19, 1993 was deemed unsupportable, and no costs were awarded.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
